Clinton Supporters Research Articles

Remembering Election Night 2016: Subjective but not objective metrics of autobiographical memory vary with political affiliation, affective valence, and surprise.

Flashbulb memories represent a unique phenomenon linking research on cognition with research on emotion, yet most studies on this phenomenon have characterized collective events that are negative and unexpected in nature. In contrast, the 2016 American election of Donald Trump was a public, culturally shared event, eliciting extreme emotional responses that were positive for some individuals but negative for others, as well as varying levels of surprise. We longitudinally evaluated autobiographical memories for Election Night 2016 in a large online sample of Clinton supporters, Trump supporters, and third-party/nonvoters over a 12-month period, in terms of both objective memory metrics (information quantity and memory consistency) and subjective memory metrics (including memory confidence, metacognition, and sensory experience). Emotional responses to the election outcome varied widely, with Clinton supporters reporting highly negative responses, Trump supporters reporting highly positive responses, and third-party/nonvoters reporting mildly negative responses. Emotional intensity was enhanced in surprised versus nonsurprised individuals. Relative to third-party/nonvoters, Clinton and Trump supporters reported greater memory vividness, event importance, and sensory experience. Additionally, limited valence effects on subjective memory were observed (including higher memory confidence in Trump supporters and higher memory rehearsal in Clinton supporters). These differences in subjective experience were observed despite similar levels of information quantity and consistency as a function of valence. This characterization of memories for surprising positive events suggests they share many of the paradoxical qualities of memories for negative events often discussed as "flashbulb memories" but also points to potential differences in memory phenomenology for personal versus collectively experienced events. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The cost of a divided America: an experimental study into destructive behavior

Does political polarization lead to dysfunctional behavior? To study this question, we investigate the attitudes of supporters of Donald Trump and of Hillary Clinton towards each other and how these attitudes affect spiteful behavior. We find that both Trump and Clinton supporters display less positive attitudes towards the opposing supporters compared to coinciding supporters. More importantly, we show that significantly more wealth is destroyed if the opponent is an opposing voter. This effect is mainly driven by Clinton voters. This provides the first experimental evidence that political polarization leads to destructive behavior.

Episodic master narratives through time: Exploring the temporal dynamism of 2016 election night stories

AbstractMaster narratives are culturally vetted stories that guide collective action. Over an 18‐month period, we examined the dynamism inherent in master narratives of the 2016 American presidential election. In assessments separated six months apart, four independent samples of Clinton and Trump voters provided their stories of election night 2016 and rated the positivity and vividness of these experiences. Narratives were additionally quantified along both linguistic (I‐talk and We‐talk) and conceptual (redemption and contamination) dimensions. Over time: (a) election night experiences became less vivid, (b) the proportion of We‐words in election night narratives increased (suggesting greater group identification), (c) Clinton supporters’ evaluations of their election nights became marginally more positive (suggesting an increased optimism), and (d) Trump supporters’ narratives became less redemptive (suggesting a reduced enthusiasm for this historical event). These results signal the enduring and dynamic elements of the narratives central to two of America's diametrically opposed sociopolitical groups.

Perspective taking in conflict settings: Can perspective taking smooth tensions between Trump and Clinton supporters in the aftermath of 2016 U.S. presidential election?

AbstractCan perspective taking improve intergroup attitudes in conflict contexts? How does a context of conflict shape people's responses to perspective‐taking tasks and their ultimate effectiveness? The present study addressed these questions by examining the effect of perspective taking (compared with a perspective giving and a control condition) on intergroup attitudes between Trump and Clinton supporters (N = 537) one month after the 2016 presidential election. Perspective taking had positive effects on some intergroup attitudes: It increased warmth toward the outgroup (thermometer ratings), outgroup tolerance, perceived similarities between groups, and marginally increased positive outgroup evaluation. This study also sheds light on the mechanisms that might reduce the effectiveness of perspective taking in conflict settings by assessing the content and the effects of the induced perspectives in response to perspective‐taking task. About half of the induced perspective‐taking narratives involved negative views of the other, which were associated with worse intergroup outcomes. In addition, higher perceived intensity of the conflict between Trump and Clinton supporters and more negative emotions about the election outcome predicted more induced negative perspectives as a response to the perspective‐taking task. In turn, negative perspectives were associated with more negative intergroup attitudes. To sum up, while perspective taking had an overall positive impact on intergroup attitudes in this conflict setting, its impact seems to be contingent upon the content of induced perspective‐taking narratives.

No echo in the chambers of political interactions on Reddit

Echo chambers in online social networks, whereby users’ beliefs are reinforced by interactions with like-minded peers and insulation from others’ points of view, have been decried as a cause of political polarization. Here, we investigate their role in the debate around the 2016 US elections on Reddit, a fundamental platform for the success of Donald Trump. We identify Trump vs Clinton supporters and reconstruct their political interaction network. We observe a preference for cross-cutting political interactions between the two communities rather than within-group interactions, thus contradicting the echo chamber narrative. Furthermore, these interactions are asymmetrical: Clinton supporters are particularly eager to answer comments by Trump supporters. Beside asymmetric heterophily, users show assortative behavior for activity, and disassortative, asymmetric behavior for popularity. Our findings are tested against a null model of random interactions, by using two different approaches: a network rewiring which preserves the activity of nodes, and a logit regression which takes into account possible confounding factors. Finally, we explore possible socio-demographic implications. Users show a tendency for geographical homophily and a small positive correlation between cross-interactions and voter abstention. Our findings shed light on public opinion formation on social media, calling for a better understanding of the social dynamics at play in this context.

The objectivity illusion and voter polarization in the 2016 presidential election

Two studies conducted during the 2016 presidential campaign examined the dynamics of the objectivity illusion, the belief that the views of "my side" are objective while the views of the opposing side are the product of bias. In the first, a three-stage longitudinal study spanning the presidential debates, supporters of the two candidates exhibited a large and generally symmetrical tendency to rate supporters of the candidate they personally favored as more influenced by appropriate (i.e., "normative") considerations, and less influenced by various sources of bias than supporters of the opposing candidate. This study broke new ground by demonstrating that the degree to which partisans displayed the objectivity illusion predicted subsequent bias in their perception of debate performance and polarization in their political attitudes over time, as well as closed-mindedness and antipathy toward political adversaries. These associations, furthermore, remained significant even after controlling for baseline levels of partisanship. A second study conducted 2 d before the election showed similar perceptions of objectivity versus bias in ratings of blog authors favoring the candidate participants personally supported or opposed. These ratings were again associated with polarization and, additionally, with the willingness to characterize supporters of the opposing candidate as evil and likely to commit acts of terrorism. At a time of particular political division and distrust in America, these findings point to the exacerbating role played by the illusion of objectivity.

Making Americans Feel Great Again? Personal Significance Predicts Political Intentions of Losers and Winners of the 2016 U.S. Election

Reactions of losers and winners of political elections have important consequences for the political system during times of power transition. In four studies conducted immediately before and after the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, we investigated how personal significance induced by success or failure of one's candidate is related to hostile versus benevolent intentions toward political adversaries. We found that the less significant supporters of Hillary Clinton and supporters of Donald Trump felt after an imagined (Study 1A) or actual (Study 2) electoral failure the more they were willing to engage in peaceful actions against the elected president and the less they were willing to accept the results of the elections. However, while significance gain due to an imagined or actual electoral success was related to more benevolent intentions among Clinton supporters (Study 1B), it was related to more hostile intentions among Trump supporters (Studies 1B, 2, and 3).

Ethics Versus Success? The Acceptance of Unethical Leadership in the 2016 US Presidential Elections.

Before and after the 2016 US Presidential Election, this research examined Trump and Clinton supporters’ attributions about behavior of each leader, both of whose ethicality had been publicly questioned. American voters (N = 268) attributed significantly more dispositional factors to the outgroup leader than to the ingroup leader. Moreover, when the ingroup candidate won the election (i.e., among Trump supporters), unethical leadership subsequently became more acceptable and there was less desire to tighten the election process when dealing with unethical candidates. The opposite pattern was found among voters whose ingroup candidate lost the election (Clinton supporters). The results and implications are discussed.

Labour Market Shocks and the Demand for Trade Protection: Evidence from Online Surveys

AbstractWe study preferences for government action in response to layoffs resulting from different types of labour-market shocks. We consider: technological change, a demand shift, bad management and three kinds of international outsourcing. Support for government intervention rises sharply in response to shocks and is heavily biased towards trade protection. Trade shocks generate more demand for protectionism and, among trade shocks, outsourcing to a developing country elicits greater demand for protectionism. The ‘bad management’ shock is the only scenario that induces a desired increase in compensatory transfers. Trump supporters are more protectionist than Clinton supporters, but preferences seem easy to manipulate: Clinton supporters primed with trade shocks are as protectionist as baseline Trump voters. Highlighting labour abuses in the exporting country increases the demand for trade protection by Clinton supporters but not Trump supporters.

Perceptions of Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Fear, Risk and the 2016 Trump Effect

Abstract Our study examines respondents’ perceptions of terrorism and counterterrorism in the USA during the 2016 presidential campaign. It does so by conducting an experiment where a group of respondents were randomly assigned to a vivid example of a terrorist attack and another group did not receive this treatment. The study’s results find opposing individual perceptions of the job government is doing to protect the country from terrorism and on differences among respondents as to the root causes of terrorism. Our research points to one explanation of this difference: Americans feel there is little they can do about terrorism and though the government is working to protect the nation, the public feels the government cannot stop, only prevent, terrorist acts from occurring. This causes the public to shift their perceptions of terrorism away from questions of efficient public policy responses to one of values. The experiment suggests heightened levels of fear among 2016 Trump voters who received the treatment compared to both Republican voters and Clinton supporters, though control and treatment groups also showed variation. Finally, this work highlights a major challenge for counter-terrorism policymakers in dealing with a highly polarized public. Recent electoral campaigns have demonstrated that politicians are actively trying to politicize terrorism. This work provides evidence that these efforts are resonating among the public. The danger of politicizing terrorism is that it blocks efforts to find common ground, between polarized groups in society in keeping the nation safe.

How an election loss leads to a social movement: Reactions to the 2016 U.S. presidential election among liberals predict later collective action and social movement identification.

Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential election victory spurred strong reactions and unprecedented collective action in the American Left. Taking advantage of the political climate in the wake of the election, this study examined whether the main antecedents of collective action (anger, political identification, and efficacy beliefs) in the immediate aftermath of the election loss for the American Left predicted varying types of collective action and social movement identification one month into Trump's presidency, and whether these factors in turn fuel anger and influence efficacy beliefs. Data collected from 913 self-identified liberal Clinton supporters at two time points (respectively, 7-10 days following the election and one month into Trump's presidency) revealed that political identification, anger, and efficacy to oppose Trump at Time 1 predicted engagement in collective action during the first month of Trump's presidency as well as higher identification with the emerging movement. While efficacy to oppose Trump predicted higher social movement identification, efficacy to change hearts and minds predicted lower social movement identification. We also examined the iterative processes of collective action, showing that the anger route was more central to galvanizing collective action than the efficacy route. These findings extend collective action research to contexts of emerging social movements following electoral processes.

Conducting psychotherapy in the Trump era: Therapists' perspectives on political self-disclosure, the therapeutic alliance, and politics in the therapy room.

To examine therapists' perspectives on political self-disclosure, perceived shared values with patients, and the therapeutic alliance. Therapists from all US states completed a structured survey (N = 268; 62% Democrats; 7% Republicans; 23% independents; 8% others). Most therapists (87%) reported they discussed politics in-session; 63% reported political self-disclosure (21% explicit; 42% implicit). Therapists who perceived political similarity with most patients were more likely to report political discussions and self-disclosure. Therapists who reported shared political views with a higher percentage of patients, and those who explicitly disclosed, also reported stronger alliances. Clinton supporters reported significant observed preelection-postelection increases in political discussions, increases in patients' expression of negative emotions, and decreases in positive emotions. Trump supporters reported the opposite phenomenon. Politics play an important role in therapeutic processes as in-session political discussions are common and perceived political similarity may affect decisions to self-disclose and alliance quality.

Sexism, perceived discrimination, and system justification in the 2016 U.S. presidential election context

The 2016 U.S. presidential election provided a pertinent context for investigating novel influences on system-related beliefs. We examined Trump and Clinton supporters’ sexist attitudes toward women, perceptions of gender discrimination, and system justification before and after the election. Controlling for conservatism, we found that (a) Trump supporters reported more modern and hostile sexism than Clinton supporters; (b) male Trump supporters perceived greater gender discrimination toward men than male Clinton supporters, an effect mediated by sexist attitudes toward women; (c) female Trump supporters perceived less gender discrimination toward women than female Clinton supporters, an effect also mediated by sexist attitudes toward women; and (d) system justification increased among Trump supporters but decreased among Clinton supporters postelection. These results extend the existing literature on system-related beliefs by revealing the role of antifeminism and misogyny in shaping perceptions of gender discrimination and highlighting how political outcomes are associated with system threat versus reinforcement.

Changes in subjective well-being following the U.S. Presidential election of 2016.

This investigation examined predictors of changes over time in subjective well-being (SWB) after the 2016 United States presidential election. Two indicators of SWB-general happiness and life satisfaction-were assessed three weeks before the election, the week of the election, three weeks later, and six months later. Partisanship predicted both indicators of SWB, with Trump supporters experiencing improved SWB after the election, Clinton supporters experiencing worsened SWB after the election, and those who viewed both candidates as bad also experiencing worsened SWB after the election. The impact of the election on SWB decreased over time, with all participants returning to baseline life satisfaction six months after the election. Trump supporters and those who viewed both candidates as bad for the country also returned to baseline general happiness six months after the election. Clinton supporters, in contrast, remained below baseline levels of general happiness six months after the election. Moral and political values, and exposure to media inconsistent with those values, predicted lasting change in subjective well-being. National events can affect how people perceive the overall quality of their lives and these effects are exacerbated when moral and political values are involved. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election

The dynamics and influence of fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election remains to be clarified. Here, we use a dataset of 171 million tweets in the five months preceding the election day to identify 30 million tweets, from 2.2 million users, which contain a link to news outlets. Based on a classification of news outlets curated by www.opensources.co, we find that 25% of these tweets spread either fake or extremely biased news. We characterize the networks of information flow to find the most influential spreaders of fake and traditional news and use causal modeling to uncover how fake news influenced the presidential election. We find that, while top influencers spreading traditional center and left leaning news largely influence the activity of Clinton supporters, this causality is reversed for the fake news: the activity of Trump supporters influences the dynamics of the top fake news spreaders.

Political behavior, perceived similarity to the candidates, and defensiveness: The curious case of a group of first-time voters in a bellwether-swing-state in 2016

ABSTRACTUsing a sample of 258 first-time voters in a bellwether swing state during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, we examined the extent to which people assumed that the major presidential candidates shared their values and defensiveness about these assumptions. Participants estimated their agreement with the two major-party candidates, completed an online quiz about their beliefs, and then received feedback about their actual agreement with the candidates. Consistent with hypotheses, Trump supporters overestimated their agreement with Trump and underestimated their agreement with Clinton on political issues. To the extent that they did so, they showed greater negative affective and defensive reactions to feedback. On the other hand, Clinton supporters unexpectedly underestimated their agreement with Clinton and only slightly underestimated their agreement with Trump. Also surprisingly, Clinton Supporters were largely unmoved learning that they misestimated their agreement with Clinton.

Experiencing vicarious rejection in the wake of the 2016 presidential election

Presidential elections in the United States pit two (or more) candidates against each other. Voters elect one and reject the others. This work tested the hypothesis that supporters of a losing presidential candidate may experience that defeat as a personal rejection. Before and after the 2016 U.S. presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, voters reported their current feelings of rejection and social pain, along with potential predictors of these feelings. Relative to Trump supporters, Clinton (losing candidate) supporters reported greater feelings of rejection, lower mood, and reduced fundamental needs post-election, while controlling for pre-election levels of these variables. Moreover, as self–candidate closeness and liberal political orientation increased, so too did feelings of rejection and social pain among Clinton supporters. We discuss the implications of these results for understanding human sensitivity to belonging threats and for the vicarious rejection literature.

Trauma Metaphor Use After Hillary Clinton’s Loss in the 2016 Presidential Election

Hillary Rodham Clinton was expected to win the 2016 U.S. presidential election, so her loss was hard to articulate for her supporters. This study examined the metaphors her supporters used to talk about her 2016 election loss. Two hundred Clinton supporters completed an online open-ended question survey about their feelings about the election. Participants relied on a number of violent and traumatic metaphors to make sense of Clinton's loss: betrayal, living in an alternate reality, large-scale disasters, wrecks, and crime. The implications of using violent and traumatic metaphors to explain the election loss are discussed.

Patients' perspectives on political self-disclosure, the therapeutic alliance, and the infiltration of politics into the therapy room in the Trump era.

The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effects of the 2016 United States presidential election and ensuing political climate on patients' experiences in psychotherapy. A sample of 604 self-described Democrat and Republican patients from 50 states participated in the study. Results showed that most therapists disclosed their political stance (explicitly or implicitly) and most patients discussed politics with their therapists. 64% of Clinton supporters and 38% of Trump supporters assumed political similarity with their therapist. Stronger patient-reported alliance levels were found for patients who (a) perceived political similarity; (b) reported implicit therapist political disclosure; and (c) found in-session political discussions helpful. Additionally, Clinton (but not Trump) supporters reported significant pre-post-election decreases in expression of positive emotions and increases in both expression of negative emotions and engagement in discussions about socio-political topics. Our findings suggest that the current political climate infiltrates the therapeutic space and affects therapeutic process and content.

The Divided States of America: How the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Shaped Perceived Levels of Gender Equality

When Barack Obama became the first Black American to be elected president of the United States, many claimed that a “postracial” society had been achieved. Analogously, we predicted that the election of a first woman president—that is, a Hillary Clinton victory—would increase perceptions of gender equality in the United States. In contrast, we predicted that a Donald Trump victory would decrease perceived gender equality. Pre- and postelection data revealed that perceived gender equality indeed decreased immediately after Election Day, but only for those who preferred Clinton over Trump—thus increasing polarization between Trump and Clinton supporters on gender-related issues. In an experimental study using a fictitious election, we found that both the winner’s gender and sexism of the man candidate contributed, independently, to perceived gender inequality. These two studies demonstrate how prominent events, such as political elections, can shape people’s perceived levels of systemic inequality. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.